On 27/04/2010 03:18, Philip Smith wrote:
Anyway, the doc would just be recommendations, along the lines of RIPE-399 being no more than recommendations. If folks think we are wasting our time putting together an IPv6 equivalent, let us know, and we can stop here. ;-)
... which gets back to the issue of vapour. We have no viable, clever multihoming mechanism in ipv6, but rely purely on the tricks that we used in ipv4. And the requirement traffic engineering hasn't gone away. The problem we face today is that if we make a recommendation to say that deaggregation is permissible on TE grounds, then we don't know what the consequences of this decision are going to be several years down the line. On the one hand, we lack a crystal ball to peer into the future; on the other, we have no theoretical models for ipv6 prefix announcements. All we have is some idea about how ipv4 prefix announcements have worked out over the last number of years, and also a list of differences between the ipv4 and ipv6 addressing models. Which brings us back to vapour: we need to make a decision on this, because deaggregation levels will have a dramatic effect on the future requirement for large quantities of TCAM and related lookup. Unfortunately, we have no basis on which to make this decision other than opinions and gut feeling. If we rely on the latter, then a highly conservative approach would be well advised. Nick